Here it comes people. Whether or not we like it. We get no vote on it either. IMO this is something that should not even be considered unless and until our borders were secured...but the powers that be would rather have all of us hog-tied and controlled first for, of course, our "safety". Frankly, I believe this opens the door to far more danger in the future. It's amazing how so many things get passed in the name of "safety". If they were so friggin worried about our "safety" why is it our borders are still friggin wide open?

January 11, 2008

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Friday plans to take the next step in getting its controversial Real ID plan off the ground, despite opposition from numerous states and privacy groups.

At a midday press conference in Washington, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is scheduled to take the wraps off final regulations for the electronic identification card mandate and to make another pitch for the scheme's perceived importance in keeping Americans safe from terrorist threats.

The new rules, which are a few months behind schedule, are supposed to build on a draft version released last March for public comment.

Chertoff himself has been mum on the details ahead of his public appearance Friday. But according to anonymous sources cited by the Associated Press and The Washington Post, the department has made at least one significant change to its earlier plans: pushing back the deadlines by which the new identification cards will be required to board airplanes and enter federal buildings.

Before, Homeland Security had envisioned requiring the IDs to be in place, starting May 11, 2008--and no later than 2013--unless states had applied for an extension.

But under the new rules, Americans won't be expected to present Real ID-compliant identification cards until 2014. Even then, the mandate will apply only to Americans younger than 50 at the time, in an apparent effort to give some disgruntled state motor vehicle departments more time to issue the licenses. The requirements would be broadened to all Americans by 2017.

"We've worked very closely with the states, in terms of developing a plan that I think will be quite inexpensive, reasonable to implement, and produce the results that...are a part of the core recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, which is secure identification when driver's licenses are presented," Chertoff said Thursday, according to a transcript of his remarks, at a meeting of departmental advisers.

Largely because of the price tag, 17 states have already enacted legislation rejecting the Real ID requirements, which Congress passed as part of an emergency spending bill in 2005, and several others were considering such a step, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the most prominent voices against the plan. But according to the AP and the Post, federal officials have somehow devised a way to reduce the expected $14 billion in costs to states to $3.9 billion under the revised rules.

It's unclear how the department plans to assuage security and privacy concerns about the cards, including whether data encoded on their two-dimensional bar codes will be encrypted to guard against misuse. The AP reported that states will have a "menu" of security options from which to choose but will not be required to embed "microchips"--ostensibly a reference to radio frequency identification, or RFID, technology, which, depending on the type, could be read either from a distance or close-up.

Here it comes people. Whether or not we like it. We get no vote on it either

Click to expand...

Yes you did.

Largely because of the price tag, 17 states have already enacted legislation rejecting the Real ID requirements, which Congress passed as part of an emergency spending bill in 2005,

Further:

The Real ID Act hands the Department of Homeland Security the power to set these standards and determine whether state drivers' licenses and other ID cards pass muster. Only ID cards approved by Homeland Security can be accepted "for any official purpose" by the feds

The Real ID Act started off as H.R. 418, which passed the House[1] and went stagnant. Representative James Sensenbrenner (R) of Wisconsin, the author of the original Real ID Act, then attached it as a rider on a military spending bill (H.R. 1268). The House of Representatives passed that spending bill with the Real ID rider 368-58,[2] and the Senate passed the joint House-Senate conference report on that bill 100-0.[3] There was no debate whatsoever on this piece of legislation. President Bush signed it into law on May 11, 2005.[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

Click to expand...

M14 Shooter said:

Why?
The federal government should not have the power to define and require 'proper' ID for federal functions?

Click to expand...

What "federal functions" specifically are you referring to? Why shouldn't that power (to control drivers licenses and IDs) remain within the states and within state borders? I thought passports were for national and "federal" functions. It is the function of the federal government to protect our national borders against invaders, not to track and control the movements and actions of our citizens within our national borders. That is a function of state police within state borders.

Technically?
You mean "in the same manner as every other act passed by congress, as a function of our representative republic"?

The action is being taken pursuant to a power granted to the DHS by a law that was passed by congress.
That's our "vote" on the matter.

What "federal functions" specifically are you referring to?

Click to expand...

One of the links I posted listed some of them. If you interact with a federal agency and/or receive a benefot from same you need an federal ID.

Why shouldn't that power (to control drivers licenses and IDs) remain within the states and within state borders?

Click to expand...

The IDs are issued as a 'feature' of state driver's license, probably for convenience of the perople trying to get it. I suspect you can get a DL w/o the ID and an ID w/o the DL.

I thought passports were for national and "federal" functions

Click to expand...

Passports are to get you in and out of the country.
They are a valid for of ID for most things (like an I9)

It is the function of the federal government to protect our national borders against invaders, not to track and control the movements and actions of our citizens within our national borders. That is the function of the states.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not a function of either, and the national ID doesnt do this any nore than a DL does.

I ask again:
The federal government should not have the power to define and require 'proper' ID for federal functions?
Why?

Passports are to get you in and out of the country.
They are a valid for of ID for most things (like an I9)

That is exactly why I support such an Id. I'm a little tired of having to sift through fake ass SS cards created with a scanner and bubble jet printer when trying to filter illegals from those eligable to work. Further, I'm a little tired of having to HIRE an illegal before I can verify a work status and then have to fire said illegal for giving me false documentation. I hope this ID is capable of being run like a debit card so that I can have immediate feedback on employment eligability.

How would this ID track anyone more than that which already happens with th eI-9 (employment) and SS# (everything else)?

Here it comes people. Whether or not we like it. We get no vote on it either. IMO this is something that should not even be considered unless and until our borders were secured...but the powers that be would rather have all of us hog-tied and controlled first for, of course, our "safety". Frankly, I believe this opens the door to far more danger in the future. It's amazing how so many things get passed in the name of "safety". If they were so friggin worried about our "safety" why is it our borders are still friggin wide open?

Click to expand...

Any state that would give up a little liberty for a little security, deserves neither.

Seriously, tm, I doubt that. The ID's will be expensive to produce and will probably be relegated to current State Highway Patrol offices for which only a fraction of their costs will be compensated from a federal level.

This is another aparatus to make us believe that we are all watched and cannot escape the Homeland Security intelligence center.

It is BS and another way to consolidate money & power. My guess is that it will be outsourced and those will be lucrative Gov contracts.

Click to expand...

The expenses of the citizens attempting to acquire and reacquire documentation is the real deal. Simply, it's a tax on the most that cannot afford it and should not be required to pay it.

Anytime you see a tax break from the republicans you can expect a tax increase somewhere else. The cost of our government rarely reduces. Whether you dig it or not matters not. Whether you pay it or not could wind your ass up in jail. Good luck with your public defender.

Technically?
You mean "in the same manner as every other act passed by congress, as a function of our representative republic"?

The action is being taken pursuant to a power granted to the DHS by a law that was passed by congress.
That's our "vote" on the matter.

Click to expand...

Some "vote". Are not our representatives supposed to represent us? It appears that they are not&#8230;at least according to the huge number of protests:

On January 25, 2007, a Resolution passed overwhelmingly in the Maine Legislature that refuses implementation of the Real ID Act in that state, and demands Congress repeal the law. Many Maine lawmakers believe the law does more harm than good, that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to enforce, is threatening to individual privacy, makes citizens increasingly vulnerable to ID theft, and would cost Maine taxpayers at least $185 million in five years because of the massive unfunded federal mandates on all the states. The Resolution vote in the Maine House was 137-4 and in the Maine Senate unanimously, 34-0.

On February 16, 2007, Utah unanimously passed a resolution that opposes the REAL ID Act. The resolution states that REAL ID is "in opposition to the Jeffersonian principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government." It further states that "the use of identification-based security cannot be justified as part of a 'layered' security system if the costs of the identification 'layer'--in dollars, lost privacy, and lost liberty--are greater than the security identification provides":

"the "common machine-readable technology" required by the REAL ID Act would convert state-issued driver licenses and identification cards into tracking devices, allowing computers to note and record people's whereabouts each time they are identified"

"the requirement that states maintain databases of information about their citizens and residents and then share this personal information with all other states will expose every state to the information security weaknesses of every other state and threaten the privacy of every American"

"the REAL ID Act wrongly coerces states into doing the federal government's bidding by threatening to refuse noncomplying states' citizens the privileges and immunities enjoyed by other states' citizens"

One of the links I posted listed some of them. If you interact with a federal agency and/or receive a benefot from same you need an federal ID.

Click to expand...

You mean "federal functions" like flying a plane intra-state, driving a car, banking, social security? No thanks. We got along just fine before with these things without instituting a national ID card. In fact, the expanded use of the SS number has been more than enough intrusion into one's privacy.

M14 Shooter said:

The IDs are issued as a 'feature' of state driver's license, probably for convenience of the perople trying to get it. I suspect you can get a DL w/o the ID and an ID w/o the DL.

Click to expand...

Some "feature". I guess you like the idea of a surveillance society?

M14 Shooter said:

Passports are to get you in and out of the country.
They are a valid for of ID for most things (like an I9)

Click to expand...

Passports, visas, green cards, etc. should be sufficient to monitor foreign people entering our country. It's the ones who come in without papers across open borders who we have to worry about and who employers have a difficult time. How about the feds monitor our borders and the foreigners instead of every U.S. citizen?

M14 Shooter said:

Actually, that's not a function of either, and the national ID doesnt do this any nore than a DL does.

Click to expand...

If the national ID does not track and control any more than a state drivers license, then why do we need one?

M14 Shooter said:

I ask again:
The federal government should not have the power to define and require 'proper' ID for federal functions?
Why?

Click to expand...

Just about everything today is becoming a "federal function". ..from driving a car to flying a plane to opening a bank account to seeing a doctor to attending a school to getting a job. I don't think those things of everyday life should be treated as "federal functions". Federal functions should be limited basically to protecting our national borders from intruders. Isn't that the function of the federal govt. per the Constitution? Like I asked you before, do you wish to live in a surveillance society?

Shogun said:

That is exactly why I support such an Id. I'm a little tired of having to sift through fake ass SS cards created with a scanner and bubble jet printer when trying to filter illegals from those eligable to work. Further, I'm a little tired of having to HIRE an illegal before I can verify a work status and then have to fire said illegal for giving me false documentation. I hope this ID is capable of being run like a debit card so that I can have immediate feedback on employment eligability.

How would this ID track anyone more than that which already happens with th eI-9 (employment) and SS# (everything else)?

Click to expand...

I don't think we should abdicate our state powers to the feds just because the feds are doing a crappy job controlling illegal invaders into our country. Why should we give up our states rights because the feds can't do their job of controlling our national borders? And if they can't manage a simple task like verifying a SS number for an employer, why is that justification for them to expand and have even more control over U.S. citizens?

This ID could eventually centralize and track your daily whereabouts and activities. Every time you went anywhere or bought anything or did simple things like check a book out of a library or take a walk in a park. And believe me, its use will become more and more required to the point where the feds could easily track you in real time in living color at the push of a button.

I don't wish to give up my personal freedom and privacy on the lame excuse that the feds need a national ID card in order to control a bunch of illegal mexicans. Ha! They've already shown that they don't give a damn about our borders.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!